The PAP has Caused 30% of Singaporeans to Live in Poverty

Several academics and economists have estimated that Singapore has a poverty rate of about 30%. Their research is compiled in this article.

This also means that Singapore has the highest poverty rate among the developed countries.

However, the PAP-run government still refuses to define a poverty line. Then-Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing erroneously claim that defining a poverty line will lead to a “cliff effect”.

Also, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong also claimed that income inequality in Singapore has “stabilised” when the truth is that, Singapore today has the highest income inequality and widest rich-poor gap among the developed countries.

The PAP also spends the least on social protection among the developed countries, so much so that the poor in Singapore continue to remain poor and are left to fend for themselves.

Meanwhile, there are fewer and fewer middle-income Singaporeans, as more and more of them fall into poverty.

Yet, today Singapore is the most expensive country in the world. The PAP refuses to implement a minimum wage and the $1,000 that lowest-wage workers earn in Singapore is the lowest among the highest-income countries.

The PAP also makes Singaporeans pay for one of the most expensive healthcare, education and housing in the world and our CPF retirement funds are also one of the least adequate among the OECD and Asia-Pacific countries.

In short, the PAP does not want to take care of Singaporeans. At the same time, the PAP pay themselves the highest salaries in the world, even as many Singaporeans cannot earn enough to even have a basic living and have to live in poverty.

“The Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs (AHEBN) is a figure calculated by the DOS. This is a measure of minimum household expenditure on essential needs such as food, clothing, and shelter for a household in a one- or two-room HDB rental flat. The resulting figure is then multiplied by 1.25 to account for other household needs (e.g., transport, education). The most recent available AHEBN estimate, as of this writing, is from 2011, and calculated to be SGD 1,250 per month for a four-person household.

Yeoh Lam Keong, former chief economist of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (now known as GIC Private Limited), argues, based on internal reviews of the AHEBN measure, that the measure provides a conservative estimate of absolute poverty. According to him, the costs are not explicitly accounted for by the AHEBN measure, but are included in the multiplier of 1.25 (e.g., transport, education, medical costs). They tend not only to increase more quickly than the expenditures on food, clothing and shelter, but are also necessary for work, school and social activities. Take for instance the mobile phone: it is a very helpful item to have when seeking employment, but such an expenditure is only one of many for which the multiplier of 1.25 is meant to account. Furthermore, Yeoh points out that actual transport and medical costs are taken into account for similar measurements in countries such as Hong Kong and Canada, indicating that there are precedents for their inclusion.

He discusses other problems in Singapore’s AHEBN calculation. First, it does not take into account costs related to investments in human capital, in that there are no out-of-pocket education expenditures, or costs related to continuing education, training, and access to information and communication technologies. Such educational endeavors are necessary for minimal social mobility and so have a significant bearing on poverty. For example, if people lack the means to increase their levels of education, because they cannot afford the costs of education itself, or the related costs of transport, materials, etc., it is far more difficult to climb out of the poverty trap. Finally, by only including families in one- or two-room flats, the AHEBN calculation does not account for those families living in threeor four-room flats who are receiving social assistance. Overall, according to Yeoh, the AHEBN calculation likely accounts for only a fraction of those Singaporean families living in poverty.

Yeoh used the AHEBN range of SGD 1,250 to 1,500 per month, applied it to the 2011 DOS Key Household Characteristics and Household Income Trends 2011 report, and found that there were approximately 110,000 to 140,000 resident households that have great difficulty meeting basic needs.

According to Yeoh, if the AHEBN calculation were adjusted to include the costs of transport, education, health care, and the training necessary for social inclusion, it would likely reveal that the bottom 10 to 20 per cent of working households are struggling to make ends meet in a way that could be defined as a form of absolute poverty. The bottom 20 to 30 per cent of working households, according to Yeoh, are probably barely able to meet basic consumption and human capital investment needs but have little in the way of retirement savings, leaving them vulnerable to falling into poverty in their lifetime.”

“The households in the lowest 30% of the income ladder spend more than their income.”

“We define the middle class here as those earning approximately the median wage. Like the least advantaged Singaporeans, the middle class saw a lengthy decrease in wages followed by a very recent reversal of this trend. Although Singapore’s economy continued to grow at the same pace that it had for decades (averaging 7.3 per cent per year in the 1990s and 5.1 per cent in the 2000s), median wages slowed, and in some recent years reversed, after the year 2000. From 2000 to 2010, taking inflation into account, wages grew only 1.3 per cent per year, rather than the average rate of growth of seven or nine per cent in previous decades. In mid-2013, it was reported that, when inflation was taken into account, wage levels actually decreased in 2012.

Second, as economic restructuring moved to higher value-added industries, lay-offs have begun to affect professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs) at higher rates than low-skilled workers. The Straits Times reported that PMETs made up more than half of the workers who lost their jobs in 2013, at 56 per cent. This is a significant increase from the 35 per cent of PMET job-losses in 2010. In addition, the manufacturing and construction sectors also laid off more workers in 2013 than in 2012, while the service sector let go fewer workers in 2013 than in 2012. Again, this suggests that the situation began to improve for the lowest deciles before the trend affected the middle class.

Finally, two recent studies suggest that the backdrop for Singapore’s high Gini coefficient and lengthy period of wage stagnation is a city that is becoming increasingly less affordable. The Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranked Singapore as the world’s most expensive city in 2013. Singapore was positioned sixth in the previous year, but its appreciating dollar has since pushed it to number one in the world. The EIU report looks at the prices of various goods and services in different countries (e.g., food, clothing, and transport) and uses New York City as a baseline. Around the same time that the EIU released its report, the National University of Singapore (NUS) economics don, Tilak Abeysinghe, published a study and extrapolated from data from the DOS, which found that 30 per cent of Singapore’s households have had to cut back on “flexible expenditures,” based most likely on the rising costs of big ticket items such as housing and health care. His study, quoted in Today, suggests that the bottom 30 per cent of households require “extra attention in the government’s welfare programmes.”

“I am disturbed by the inequality in Singapore. We have one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world. I am unhappy that many of our children are growing up in poverty. About a third of our students go to school with no pocket money to buy lunch.

As a trustee of two education trusts, I am reminded each year of the large number of needy students in our schools and tertiary institutions. I was shocked when the president of one of our universities told us recently that 60 per cent of his students need financial assistance.

At the other end of the spectrum, I am worried about the growing number of the elderly poor. Many of them are in poor health and have inadequate savings. Many of them live in loneliness, having no family or been abandoned by family and relatives.”

“Still, one cannot deny that student poverty exists. The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund helps more than 10,000 students each year.

I am a trustee of the Lee Wee Kheng Charitable Trust. Each year, we donate about $1 million to help needy students in our schools. The Ministry of Education helps identify the 100 schools with the highest number of needy students, and we give $10,000 to each of the schools.

I am also a trustee of the Tan Chay Bing Education Trust. We give bursaries and scholarships to needy students in the universities, Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, LaSalle, Shatec, the Intercultural Institute and others. The bursaries are a lifeline to some. Without our help, they would most likely have to abandon their studies or work part-time. The needs exceed our ability to help.”

• Relative poverty is half of the median per capita household income. Approx. 27% of households.

• Working definition ‐ the poor / low income group is basically bottom 30th percentile of households, that is with average monthly household income from work equal to $1862 or below. Approx 227,400 households.

• Singapore has a limited public assistance program.

• Less than 5% of households in the low income group are beneficiaries of state funded systems; and only 0.07% of the population received public assistance in 2004.

• The amount of assistance is kept deliberately extremely low at around 5‐8% of per capita income.

• The end result of these social policies has been to make individuals and their families bear disproportionate risks of old‐age and low incomes with grossly inadequate social risk pooling.

• It is now reluctantly acknowledged in Singapore that the CPF system will not be adequate to meet the ageing challenges.

• There are several reasons for this inadequacy. A single‐tier, involving mandatory‐savings, can never provide adequate replacement rate; or address inflation and longevity risks; or provide survivor and disability benefits

“Levels of relative poverty can be estimated in various ways. A common way of estimating the incidence of relative poverty involves using the median wage as a benchmark, and those whose income is less than half the median wage are considered poor in the relative sense. Irene Ng suggests that using this measure to estimate relative poverty in Singapore is difficult, because income distribution is reported in deciles. Nevertheless, Ng proceeds by assuming that the reported mean incomes fall at the midpoint of each decile, and estimates that around 20 per cent of Singaporean households are poor by these standards.

Hui Weng Tat provides a different estimate of households living in relative poverty in Singapore, using a similar way of measuring it. Hui understands this relative poverty line to be set at 60 per cent of the national median equivalised income. According to his measure, the incidence of relative poverty is around 35 per cent in Singapore. Both Hui and Ng argue that the number of Singaporeans living in poverty, according to relative measures, is in general increasing. However, some of this trend may be currently reversing.”

Is this the way a government should run a country? The PAP is no longer a party that cares for Singaporeans. The PAP is no longer a government.

It is time Singaporeans do what is right and vote for a new government to protect ourselves.

Like this:

Related

70 comments

” ……and now with there an upcoming elections next year, there is an high chance that our citizens of Singapore, things can finally change for the better, all hopeful change, for good change, for every possible kind. ”

In addition to a child’s expression of willingness, but also a desire of the majority common Singaporeans, there is nothing ground you adults must put him in jail for 18 days ?

2. 16 years old is still a child, if he did something wrong, should maximum an verbal warning , instead of slap him and handcuffed him for 18 days , the savage ruling class has imposed various invisible wound to a child’s body and soul which was difficult to heal in the future. when something reaches the extreme it reverses…

what attention ?

1. Who created this savage law ? – — Lee Kuan Yew !
2. Who benefit from this barbaric regime ? —- Lee family and their nannies,
3. who is Lee family’s nannies ? — – police, Prosecutors, judges, VIP……ranking second class sky high salary winners…
4. Why such a bad man still popular ? — spent 50 years cultivated he is God.

this may credit to him — LKY son — LHL’s former secretary, he got promotion to in charge the Medias. so they create a false impression that LKY he make the streets, he builts schools, he set hospitals, he plant the foods , he offer air , he pregnant Singapore , he deliver baby, he feed milk…., he was Raffles that first landing Singapore…..everything is because of Lee Kuan Yew .

so called founding father fear of the nations to visit his luxury house?

Directions
Fill a blender with ice and crush. Pour in the tequila and triple sec. Add the strawberries and limeade. Blend for 30 seconds or until smooth. Serve in margarita glasses with the rims dipped in powdered sugar.

Directions
Salt the rims of 2 large margarita glasses. To do so, pour salt onto a small plate, moisten the rims of the glasses on a damp towel and press them into the salt.
In a pitcher combine limeade, pineapple juice, orange juice, tequila and orange liqueur. Stir well and pour into the glasses, being careful not to rinse off the salt.

How long the PAP rules in Singapore is ultimately in the hands of the people.
I know that the PAP has created various schemes to win every elections, even lying about the oppositions and if that does not work, imprisoning them.
People, the opposition IS NOT your enemy.
They are the true blue Singaporeans who want to make a difference.
Currently, the PAP has absolute power and as you are all well aware, such power also corrupts.
The PAP can do whatever it wants to ascertain power but if most Singaporeans collectively vote against them than they WILL loose their stranglehold on Singapore.
The next election will be the litmus test for Singaporeans.
If you are unable to change government at that time than you would have lost a golden opportunity.
Todays foreigners will become tomorrows new Singaporeans.
They will vote for the PAP.
If that happens, than, I am afraid, all is lost for the genuine Singaporeans.
There are Singaporeans who have always voted against the PAP.
They have been doing this since the very first elections.
It must be disheartening for such people to continue to live in such a place.
Some, like myself, left Singapore.
There are many who would want to leave but are unable to because of various reasons.
Such frustrations cannot be good for the well being of any one.

Directions
Measure the tequila, lime juice, sweetened lime juice and triple sec into a cocktail shaker and add a generous scoop of ice. Cover and shake until the shaker is frosty, about 30 seconds.
Rub a lime wedge around the rim of a margarita glass and dip in salt. Fill each glass with ice. Strain equal amounts of the cocktail into the glasses to serve. Garnish with a lime wedge.

Directions
Fill a cocktail shaker with ice; pour in vodka, tequila, rum, gin, Cointreau, and sweet and sour mix. Cover and shake until the outside of the shaker is frosty. Place a few cubes of ice into a highball glass, and strain in the iced tea. Top with the cola, and garnish with a wedge of lime.

If pap continues to lose more votes and lose more ministers, we will end up having a weak ruling party and a weak opposition. The world order has changed and we need a strong government, otherwise we will all lose big time. When that happens , we will then really be controlled not only by foreigners but by foreign countries.

And the pap already lost at least 4 ministers, two former PM in the cabinet because of people’s voice. So the people is already checking the govt instead of opposition party. Even after WP gets into parliament in 2011, they proved to be jokers.

Roy is merely using government and official finding and data as his own trying to gain ‘credit’.
That is indeed why the government has to ensure Singaporean has enough CPF saving for their old age. And paying the Singaporean higher interest on CPF saving.
Allowing Singaporean to withdraw all their CPF money when reaching 55, will further escalate poverty rates.
Roy, on one hand, screaming “return our CPF” , on the other hand shouting that Singaporean has insufficient money for their old age, is indeed contradictory.
Too much banana juice in his head. Roy, don’t use others work to gain credit. We won’t buy that anymore ever since you swindle the donation money for your Europe tour. You better account for it before we take further action.

Roy is using the ‘keep quiet’ technique according to Amos. “This technique is used where when the truth is revealed, and it has an adverse effect on people’s view towards you, so you just keep as quiet as possible, waiting for everyone to forget what you did, and for the problem to go away, so that you can continue smoothly with your humdrum life.” So he conveniently ignore you and other donors on the donation.

*Singaporeans have only themselves to blame for their misery and POVERTY if they choose to be blinded by their faith in the PAP and continue to vote with their blinders on You can lead a horse to drink but it is the horse’s choice in the end, to drink or otherwise. *

* Of course the THOUSANDS who threw off their blinders years ago and continue to do so*

* emigrated to greener pastures and left the awful concrete and soul-less island .*

* Sometimes, if you are wise, you will have to make quick decisions to ensure you have*

* a brighter and happier future in later life. Thank goodness and Praise the Lord I did just*

* that years ago and now retire in an acre of rural paradise. Anyone need information or*

jackfruit,
in order to eradicate you, people must support Roy and Amos ! Vote out PAP.
look at your every record here :

1. Intimidation
2. Gloat person
3. forced Roy to open his private account ( who give you th right since you are just a Porn maker )
4. download Porn to attack here, such low means is your daughter secretary ‘s idea ?

“Are falling into poverty line”? Abiet all the definition of poverty line, Singaporeans ‘grow’ into povrerty in an affluent environment with lots of jobs, opportunies and social and financial assistance scheme available. Most are the making for themselves, squandering their earnings and spending irresponsibly. The answer to the perceived poverty is to educate and create awareness of self responsibility and avoid living a lifestyle that by mid age one becomes barely sustainable and expects the government to help them. People who do not want to learn, acquire skills or are lazy, I know of some and call themselves poor, then live by borrowing to sustain. You find them at the 4D counter every weekends??

Agreed, I made the same point on my new post. While there are legit households that are stuck in poverty trap, I would seriously question others that are not really in such trap.

Makes you wonder how people are willing to spend a significantly more than what they earn annually. In fact, apart from those legit households, how do you even define poverty in Singapore? Does not being able to go Las Vegas and spend a copious amount of 100K champagne like Mayweather makes you poor? While it is an extreme analogy, one should be aware to differentiate people who are really trap in poverty trap and those who are poor due to being irresponsible.

All,these quotes you display are concerns and trends for political debate or social awareness so that policies can be formulated. What happens if the oppositions takes over and all these becomes a reality at 60% not making sustainable living???

@Vince. Agreed! But unfortunately some Singaporean are unwise and dumb. That’s why they donated to Roy and bought him a Europe tour. Funded him to bully special needs children. M.Ravi has told us the evil act of Roy in his YouTube.

@THE SIXTEN
“為了從進口的外國人哪裡每月收取勞工稅或公積金，把人口暴漲到擁擠不堪的地步， 難道你聽不出來尚達曼副總理被BBC記者嘲諷嗎 ？” There is an easy solution, tell government to slow down the economy, stop most of constructions, close downs most businesses that are not sustainable for Singapore. Also shut down all businesses with jobs that Singaporean do not wish to do. (Toilet cleaning, Service industry, road cleaners, construction, etcetc.)

“一直糾纏Roy的捐款， 如果你們後悔捐款，那麼請列出哪一天， 從你哪一個帳戶轉帳號碼給他， 我們相信，他會退還給你， 請你從此後不要再糾纏不清。” So there are people claim that he used the the money donated to him for his personal use, to be fair, if the money has been donated to him, it should be “ok” for him to use as he see fit. However, for someone who is preaching transparency, why doesn’t he get transparent and address the issue?

” 說實話, 他的演講具有劃時代的進步意義， 並受到了廣泛的贊同” Yea, he pretty much just preaching/parroting issues that majority of people are aware of. I will give him credit as much as to speak up where others do not wish/dare, however, from all the talks there is no sign of solution offered by him, no analysis of his own or whatsoever. So as far as “劃時代的進步意義”, I do not think so, it is just mere ranting.

Roy, previously on the eve of Amos Yee’s verdict, I posted on your site a cautionary note to you to shed your blinkers, that this kid is trouble, not one you should be putting on a pedestal. How opportune and appropriate that message was now that the kid has laid bare his character for all to see.

Whilst I take a dim view of the court’s verdict (posted below is my letter to Judge Kaur), I am even more critical of Amos’s supporters who choose to remain blind to his wild and troubling personality. No doubt there won’t be a crazed Seung-hui Cho afoot in Singapore due to the tight security measures here, however, there is no telling to what extent Amos’s raging teenage hormones would take him. He is beyond help from any outside friends now. Only time would sort out his narcissistic-antisocial-borderline personality disorder.

The very last thing he needs is any more of such a naive post found on his site today that reads, for example: “…I am impressed with your command of the English Language, … please forgive me for not being able to write even half as well. … I am a Christian, … but I hope you won’t be offended if I pray for you.”

Here’s a kid who could not even ply a simple preposition correctly in his article — The Molestation OF Vincent Law which was what he wrote as opposed to what was intended in that message of The Molestation BY Vincent Law. His level of English proficiency is sufficient for chatty, social blogs but it is far from any literary grade or purpose. He did make mention in that article, his adoration for indie film makers like Paul Thomas Anderson, Richard Linklater and Robert Rodriguez. But what he willfully omits to acknowledge is that his idols had all gone to college/university in some form to bone up on their craft before they were ready for show time. But at 16 or 17, Amos’s inflated ego is already too big for his britches. The insufferable attitude of this kid, coupled with the notoriety he has now created for himself, bodes very badly for his future. I wish him luck but rate him only a 50-50 chance at succeeding in life.

Now back to the reason for this post. I welcome your censorious write-ups on the government. If you had learned anything though, it has to be about the avoidance of personalization of criticism — purge your commentary of all personal innuendos and insinuations. Incidentally, it’s high time local political oppositions here grow up and act maturely and learn the art of politicking the proper Singapore way.

……………………………….

A open letter to Judge Jasvender Kaur following her Amos Yee verdict:

Setting a precedent for ‘Hebdo-ization’ in Singapore?

In January 2015, the French satirical, lampooner magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was set upon by religious fanatics, furious over the ‘Hebdo-ization’ of their sacrosanct Prophet.

In May 2015, a District Judge here found Amos Yee guilty of disseminating obscenity on the internet. Accordingly, his one obscene commission has the effect to ‘deprave and corrupt’ internet viewers; that was attributed to a single cartoony illustration Yee uploaded, depicting the late SM Lee and Margaret Thatcher in a ludicrous, compromising position. Any reasonable member in the community would have to wonder, in good conscience, if Yee’s obscenity conviction was really about obscenity as charged or about the ‘Hebdo-ization of the late SM Lee. From beyond looking on, SM Lee would doubtless be mortified to be accorded such sacrosanctity on a par with some holy religious figure.

Are we here heading down the slippery slope towards criminalization of even innocuous cheeky caricature? I surely hope not.

Hard cases make bad law. To begin with, Yee’s charges were neither fish nor fowl. To be sure, he was guilty of running his mouth off with vile expletives, shenanigans of which should have been duly dealt with in family-juvenile court. Unfortunately, in this instance, the AG office overreacted and overcharged Yee. It ended up putting the court in a state of cognitive dissonance over the fitness of sentence for the crimes Yee purportedly committed.

A coda: I chose to omit details of Yee’s second guilty criminal finding which relates to upsetting religious communal tranquility. I did that for the simple reason that any hired appellate gun wise to the facts would be chomping at the bit for action — the stuff of ready-made reversal one only dreams of.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this on the basis that, the demographics of the so-called “children” have changed significantly over the past few decades. We have to agree that children nowadays are exposed to society earlier than they should through the use of internet and media. We also have to agree that children nowadays are more mature than their counterparts decades ago. We also know that there are significant amount of juvenile got into the crime, fully knowing of their age will except them for it. (The recent beheading of Japanese teenager is one example, if you do not know about it, you should read about it).

What we really need is a world revision of juvenile law and not giving them a reason to hide behind and manipulate the justice system.

Note: Furthermore, Yee has already reuploaded the video and image which are ordered to be removed by court, saw it on 21st May 2015, still up as I am typing this. Makes you wonder what such individual will do if they ever get a gun on their hand.

Thanks Roy for enlightening us. I was once of your supporter. However, after reading the above your post on the above, together with those findings from renowned individual, I began to understand that indeed the government’s policy on CPF is really beneficial to Singaporean. Not only CPF pays us a higher interest rate compare to the bank, it also ensure that we will not live in poverty at our old age.
Thanks Roy, thanks PAP and the Government. Now I can sleep in peace without worrying about my old age live.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that Singapore government must ensure do not let any one left behind.
After last election in 2011, PAP won 61% .
it is your job to assist people to achieve PM’s word,
but now,
where is it ?
what have you officer done ?
can you give a few example ?

be politely ?
be neighborly ? sympathetic ?
behave modestly ?

No ! never !
Conversely, Your attitude is malignant,
If you want political career continue , you must apologize !

We don’t need the PAP to have a government. We just need ourselves. It’s time to rise, my friends. Do it for yourselves. For our children. and also do it for me , an alternative government will institute social protection scheme including unemployment benefits, holidays to Norway etc .. of course for youand me…..VOTE SINGFIRST

“I agree with the CPF Advisory Panel’s recommendation to give members flexibility to defer their Payout Start Age to as late as 70, with a permanent 6 to 7 per cent increase in monthly payouts for every year that they defer.

“In line with this, under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, there would be a permanent 6 to 7 per cent decrease in payouts for every year that members choose to bring forward their Payout Start Age. Members must be made aware that their monthly payouts could be significantly less should they choose this early payout option,” he said.

Roy, what happened to the donation money? Can you show the full detailed itemised accounts? These money are from the public specifically to support your legal case. This is what you asked the money for. So, where is the money now?

You want to talk about CPF? The CPF published audited reports yearly. But how about the donation money? Where’s the transparency? Where’s the accountability?

Lawyer Teo Soh Lung’s memoir of her 21 May 1987 arrest and framing by the Singapore authorities as part of the so-called ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ is a remarkable document. Not only does it show how a person of courage and integrity can speak truth to power, but it also illustrates how that power corrupts and destroys the souls of those who wield it unscrupulously. One day a Singaporean Truth and Reconciliation Commission will determine the truth of the PAP years. Until this happens, this memoir will serve as an essential benchmark. — Peter Carey, fellow Emeritus, Oxford

1)
for those toilet cleaning, Service industry, road cleaners, construction, etc etc. you can sign a two to five-year service contract , they must go back after this period .

that will solve the problem of population explosion, because their wives and children have brought together settlers, nothing benefit for the small island.

it has been brought an range of supply issues, such as the school tight vacancy , the traffic congestion, the medical problem, everything has affected the lives of the local nationals , because the 6 million population increasing , local Singaporeans will wait for long time queue to see doctor, will spent more time at the jam of traffic , will join their low wage, low living cost competition.

Apparently, the local Singaporeans ‘s life are more difficult than before .
meanwhile, the current government has not subsidized to locals jobless policy, resulting everyday people live in highly competitive situation , many local people suddenly die on the road accident.

each of tragedy seems no future to them .

2)

who ” claim that he used the the money donated to him for his personal use ” ?

is Lawyer M Ravi ?

But since your Law Society has issued a big ADVERTISING : ” M Ravi to cease practice, and the lawyer will need medical approval from an approved psychiatrist before he is allowed to practise again. ”

Then, everybody believed what you said ” Mr Ravi must produce a medical report from his attending psychiatrist, or any other psychiatrist approved by the Law Society to lift the current suspension.

Thus, if here you still used a the psychiatrist’s patient to testify or claim with Roy ? your intentions was very malicious .

3)
Roy Ngerng Yi Ling is not a politician, he did not take the civil service salary, he is a jobless guy, so he does not need anything to report to the nationals.

On the contrary, the Leader needs do so. because the given him a sky high wages, that demanding him the transparency, responsibility and accountability.

You may know a common sense, the difference between the rulers and the people, that is the people did not take states money monthly or yearly , and the rulers take the money for years by years , you – Singapore Prime Minister shall not have the right to sue the person who doubting your ability and character !

@ The Sixten
1. This issue is more of social cultures and stigma related to Singapore and probably other countries too. The stigma of working at “low” jobs are degrading and humiliating etc. This strikes me most when I visited Japan, I realized this country do not has as much foreigners even though there are so many “low” jobs required to be filled. I observed these Japanese performing jobs which Singaporeans deemed degrading, why such differences?

Is it because of education level?
Is it because of the government attitude with getting foreigners?
Is it because of the local culture?

Also on the issue of school vacancy and medical etc, one would wonder is it because of these foreign workers or is it due to medical tourism and foreign students or both?

While your suggestions might sounds well, the root of the problem is still :
a. Locals not willing or unable to performs on certain jobs.
b. Singapore workforce can no longer be sustained by local.
Due to this, there is no way Singapore can avoid using foreign workers.

2. Regardless who suggested the blog owner has/had misused the donation, do remember that this is the same person who talks about transparency. Therefore, in all appropriateness, the blog owner has the opportunity to discuss the issue rather than keeping silent about it. I have no idea about your argument, nor am I interested how he used the donation money. I have made my point that, if donation is given to him without condition attached, I do not see an issue on how he uses the donation money. My point is, he has an opportunity to be transparent and at least face the issue rather than parroting on other people works.

3. I cannot agree with this. For someone who claims to be doing/talking for the “good” of his nation, and writing so much (of other people work) about the country, I do not see why being jobless has anything to do with giving good sound suggestion for the country. Whether he is politician or a jobless person has totally no relation on this issue. Following your argument, you are suggesting that normal citizen has no right to discuss and give suggestions (which the blog owner has not done so) for the “good” of the nation.

Yes, Singapore leaders have the highest legitimate salary in the world, for their own reasoning (which I cannot understand…). Again though, you missing my point on this one. What I am saying is, the blog owner should gives some thought and suggestions on his own rather than mooching off other people works and repeating stuff that people already know about.

In essence, all these 3 points come down to: Do you have your own thoughts and suggestions on current issue? What Singapore need is sound suggestions and not mindless ranting (using other people work) over them.
Personally, I do like to see some suggestions and ideas from local Singaporeans, and I do mean suggestions and ideas that will work socially and politically rather than extreme radical ideas.

On side note, another reason why current political party is in power that almost never been discussed properly or purposely ignored, is the issue of capability of opposition party. I have given an analogy on this issue is as “Removing the main pilot after a severe turbulence, with a pilot-in-training and hoping for the best”.

The real issue the way I feel is, the opposition party is simply just “not good enough”, if they have contributed in any way, I have not read or seen about it. The last time I read anything about opposition party is about a scandal and how fast the party cut the relationship rather than admit, repents and perform together. My impression on this is, “Wow! Look at how fast they cut off connection! I guess if they ever get into power and if there is any issue or problems, they will just brush it aside or toss it to someone else!”.

So, before any discussion or rant about how current political party “must go”, first you will need another political party to replace them. Hopefully one that is capable enough not to sink Singapore as a whole.